Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Review

Decade of progress in motor functional neurological

disorder: continuing the momentum
David L Perez  ‍ ‍,1 Mark J Edwards,2 Glenn Nielsen,2 Kasia Kozlowska,3
Mark Hallett  ‍ ‍,4 W Curt LaFrance, Jr  ‍ ‍5

►► Additional material is ABSTRACT specificity, an expanding ‘toolbox’ of treatments

published online only. To view, Functional neurological disorder (FND) is a prevalent, and new pathophysiological models that embrace
please visit the journal online
(http://d​ x.​doi.o​ rg/​10.​1136/​ disabling and costly condition at the neurology– patient-­centred biopsychosocial formulations.3 A
jnnp-​2020-​323953). psychiatry intersection. After being marginalised in the newly formed professional society (​www.​fndsociety.​
late 20th century, there has been renewed interest org), authoritative FND textbooks4 5 and recent
1
Neurology and Psychiatry, in this field. In this article, we review advances that special journal issues on this topic have further
Massachusetts General Hospital, energised clinical and research efforts in FND.
have occurred over the past decade (2011–2020)
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
2
Neuroscience Research Centre, across diagnosis, mechanisms, aetiologies, treatments In this narrative review, we highlight important
St George’s University of and stigma in patients with motor FND (mFND, that advancements and their implications for motor
London, London, UK is, functional movement disorder and functional limb FND (mFND) over the past 10 years (2011–2020)—
3
Westmead Institute of Medical weakness). In each content area, we also discuss the spanning functional movement disorder and func-
Research, The Children’s
Hospital at Westmead, Sydney implications of recent advances and suggest future tional limb/face weakness. We use a transdiagnostic
Medical School, Westmead, New directions that will help continue the momentum of the approach across the range of functional motor
South Wales, Australia past decade. In diagnosis, a major advance has been symptoms given high phenotypic overlap across
4
NIH, NINDS, Bethesda, the emphasis on rule-­in physical signs that are specific populations (eg, functional tremor with concurrent
Maryland, USA functional weakness in the same limb).S3 Isolated
5 for hyperkinetic and hypokinetic functional motor
Psychiatry and Neurology,
Rhode Island Hospital, symptoms. Mechanistically, greater importance has functional (psychogenic non-­epileptic/dissociative)
Providence, Rhode Island, USA been given to determining ’how’ functional neurological seizures, functional speech/voice disorder, func-
symptoms develop, highlighting roles for misdirected tional cognitive disorder, functional sensory deficits
Correspondence to attention, expectation and self-­agency, as well as and the spectrum of functional somatic disorders
Dr W Curt LaFrance, Jr, abnormal influences of emotion/threat processing brain are beyond the scope of this article and have been
Psychiatry and Neurology, reviewed elsewhere.S4 S5 Sections here detail recent
areas on motor control circuits. Aetiologically, while
Rhode Island Hospital,
Providence, RI 2903, USA; ​ roles for adverse life experiences remain of interest developments in diagnosis, mechanisms, aetiolog-
william_​lafrance_​jr@​brown.​edu in mFND, there is recognition of other aetiologic ical factors, treatments and stigma in patients with
contributors, and efforts are needed to investigate links mFND. In each content area, future directions are
Received 30 December 2020 between aetiological factors and mechanisms. This also suggested, aimed at continuing the momentum
Revised 8 February 2021
Accepted 23 February 2021 decade has seen the first randomised controlled trials of the past decade.
Published Online First 15 March for physiotherapy, multidisciplinary rehabilitation and
2021 psychotherapy performed in the field, with consensus
recommendations for physiotherapy, occupational DIAGNOSIS
therapy and outcome measures also published. Across New developments
patients, clinicians, healthcare systems and society, Establishing the diagnosis of mFND has been made
stigma remains a major concern. While challenges more practicable,S6 as physical examination find-
persist, a patient-­centred integrated clinical neuroscience ings with diagnostic specificity have been identified
approach is primed to carry forward the momentum of (eg, Hoover’s sign with an estimated specificity
the past decade into the future. of 95.7%–99.9%).6 Educational efforts have also
made neurologists more confident in their ability to
accurately diagnose patients with mFND, discour-
aging extensive laboratory testing unless a comorbid
INTRODUCTION neurological disorder is suspected.7
Functional neurological disorder (FND), also The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
known as conversion disorder, is a common, Disorders-­Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for FND
disabling and costly condition at the intersection include the diagnostic features of inconsistency
of neurology and psychiatry.1 2 While of interest to and incongruity on examination, emphasising posi-
founding leaders across the clinical neurosciences in tive neurological features; identifying an under-
© Author(s) (or their
employer(s)) 2021. No the late 19th century, FND was largely abandoned lying psychological trauma has been relegated to a
commercial re-­use. See rights by academics and researchers alike during the late discussion note and removed as a criterion.1 S3 S6
and permissions. Published 20th century.S1 The rationale for these difficulties Inconsistency refers to changes in manifestation
by BMJ. were based in part on a Cartesian dualism of the over time, such as variation in tremor frequency
To cite: Perez DL, Edwards brain and mind, limited neuropathophysiologic and amplitude or remissions and exacerbations.
MJ, Nielsen G, et al. J Neurol understanding and few evidence-­based treatments.S2 Incongruity refers to discordance with other known
Neurosurg Psychiatry In the 21st century, a resurgence of interest in FND neurological disorders or human anatomy and
2021;92:668–677. has occurred, catalysed by improved diagnostic physiology. Additional general diagnostic features
668 Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Table 1  Positive clinical features (phenotype specific) and useful adjunctive laboratory tests for the diagnosis of functional movement disorder
Functional motor
symptom Clinical features Laboratory tests
Tremor Entrainment (tremor takes on the rhythm of paced movements performed with another Clinical neurophysiological measurements can quantify entrainment,
body part) pause with quick movement, variability, tonic contraction at onset,
Pause with quick movement of another limb increase amplitude with weighting and coherence between limbs
Variability in frequency, amplitude
Tonic contraction at onset
Increase in amplitude with weighting
Coherence of tremor between two limbs
Whack-­a-­mole sign (restraint of tremor induces tremor in another body part)
Myoclonus Variability and long duration of the movement Long electromyography bursts
Complex movement Presence of a Bereitschaftspotential (readiness potential) before the
Appearance of startle jerk
Long and variable latency of stimulus induced jerks With stimulus-­induced jerks: long and variable latency
Jerks when tendon hammer stops short of contact
Tic Lack of urge Normal Bereitschaftspotential
Lack of voluntary control (suppressibility)
Dystonia Certain patterns such as fixed dystonia or pulling lip to one side Normal blink reflex recovery
Normal plasticity with paired associative conditioning
Parkinsonism Marked slowness or incoordination in examination but not with normal movements Normal dopamine transporter scan
Gegenhalten (variable resistance during passive movement)
Lack of sequence effect (slowness without amplitude decrement during repetitive
movements)
Huffing and puffing sign (fatigue with minimal effort)
Gait disorders Specific patterns including knee buckling, dragging a monoplegic leg, astasia-­abasia, None
excessive slowness and atypical limping
Better balance than claimed, including improvement with distraction
Either no falls, controlled falls or falling toward support
Chair test (can use legs to move a chair better than walking)

are distractibility and suggestibility. Most other diagnostic signs intermittent lip deviation to one side15 are commonly identified
are phenotype specific and can be augmented by certain clinical functional patterns. Functional facial spasm, a common stroke
neurophysiological tests.S7 Clinical neurophysiological tests (eg, mimic, is characterised by platysma hyperactivation, jaw devia-
electromyography-­assisted identification of tremor pause during tion and ipsilateral eyebrow depression.15
ballistic movements) can either objectify bedside observations or In support of the stability of an mFND diagnosis based on
identify features that clinicians cannot readily appreciate.8 examination signs, a 14-­year prospective study in 76 patients
Positive signs on examination that characterise functional limb with functional limb weakness showed only a 1% misdiagnosis
weakness (and functional sensory and gait disorders) have been rate.16 Notably, some patients have both functional neurolog-
analysed for their statistical properties (including sensitivities ical signs and other neurological conditions, such as associations
and specificities)6 and then subjected to prospective analysis, with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and other neurode-
including inter-­rater reliability.9 Reliable signs of functional limb generative disorders.16 17
weakness include give-­way/collapsing weakness, drift without
pronation, cocontraction, Hoover’s sign, hip abductor sign,
Implications
Spinal Injuries Center Test and weakness of the sternocleidomas-
Improved diagnostic specificity has made it easier for neurolo-
toid with hemiparesis.
gists to present the diagnosis to patients, which is the first step
Hyperkinetic mFND presentations include tremor, myoc-
in treatment.18 It is generally necessary for the patient to agree
lonus and tics (jerky movements), dystonia, parkinsonism and
with the diagnosis or, at least, allow for the possibility of such
gait disorders. Clinical and laboratory features are described in
before moving onto additional treatments. Additionally, it has
table 1.1 10 S3 Tremor and myoclonus are readily identifiable with
been suggested that it is helpful to demonstrate positive signs
established clinical features and excellent neurophysiological
to the patient to show how the diagnosis was made.19 Increased
tests that can be used for confirmation in ambiguous cases.11 S7
S8 diagnostic specificity also permits identification of cohorts with
Differentiating functional versus neurogenic motor tics can be
content validity for research studies.
difficult if the presence of an urge or sensory tic is not present or
uncertain.12 The presence of a Bereitschaftspotential (readiness
potential) prior to the movement is common in functional jerky Future directions
movements and is rare or foreshortened in other motor tics, but There is a need to further test the specificity, sensitivities and
this is not definitive.11 Functional parkinsonism is usually iden- inter-­rater reliability of the growing range of positive func-
tifiable on physical examination, but a normal dopamine trans- tional signs compared with other neurological populations,
porter scan can aid the diagnosis in challenging cases.S9 Gait particularly given that statistical properties for some signs
disorders are usually also diagnosed by examination patterns9 13, have been only tested in a single cohort.6 Additionally, func-
perhaps the most important feature being that balance can be tional dystonia remains among the most challenging mFND
demonstrated to be better than what is perceived by the patient. diagnoses. The overlap of clinical features and neurophysio-
Functional dystonia remains challenging to diagnose given some logical tests with other dystonia subtypes remains obscure and
overlapping clinical features with neurogenic dystonias, and, needs to be explained. However, there are some promising
remarkably, overlapping clinical neurophysiological features tests (eg, blink reflex recovery and paired-­associative stimu-
as well.S10 Fixed dystonia,S11 post-­ traumatic dystonia14 and lation induced plasticity) that need further validation.20 S12
Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 669
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Although relevant to only a small minority of cases, there is is that abnormally strong predictions, relevant to symptoms
also a need to better distinguish mFND (where symptoms such as weakness, tremor and gait difficulties, develop and
are experienced as involuntary) from factitious disorder and are made more precise by body-­focused attention. This drives
malingering; in both factitious disorder and malingering, there symptom production in line with abnormal predictions and
is conscious feigning of symptoms.21 The latter two presenta- overwhelms contradictory sensory evidence. Notably, efforts
tions are rare but unfortunately influence physician attitudes are underway to test these theories, such as the recent use of
toward patients, and they should be addressed differently. the ‘broken escalator’ paradigm probing non-­conscious and
Another challenge is to identify adjunctive diagnostic conscious forms of motor learning in patients with functional
biomarkers. Quantitative neuroimaging alone in its current gait disorder to identify persistence of a locomotor after effect
form may not provide the answer. Neuroimaging findings (representing a failure of deadaptation) (see figure 1).23 This
are valuable in understanding the neuropathophysiology mechanism can also lead to motor symptoms without a sense
of mFND, but are sufficiently subtle (and heterogeneous) of agency, with functional neuroimaging studies in mFND
that they will likely not have high sensitivity and specificity implicating the right temporoparietal junction/inferior parietal
on an individual basis. While neurophysiological testing lobule in deficits in action authorship perceptions.24
shows encouraging value in some circumstances,8 11 it will Recent work, using neuroimaging and other experi-
be important to show high specificity when used in rele- mental approaches, has also begun to contextualise the role
vant uncertain clinical circumstances. Composite diagnostic of emotion/threat processing in the pathophysiology of
biomarkers across multiple neurobiological data points (elec- mFND.S15 This research has sought to elucidate the way in
trophysiology, neuroimaging, autonomics, etc) also warrant which networks relevant to voluntary movement might be
future investigation. abnormally influenced (‘hijacked’) by networks serving affec-
Lastly, the field needs to better contextualise the overlap tive and threat processing. Noteworthy findings include: (1)
between mFND and other FND subtypes (eg, functional a direct effect of recall of relevant traumatic life events on
seizures), as well as to explore optimal approaches to contex- supplementary motor area activation25; (2) abnormal connec-
tualise other bodily symptoms frequently present in patients tivity between motor control areas and amygdala/insula brain
with mFND that closely relate to quality of life (eg, pain, areas during rest and affective provocationS16 and (3) altered
fatigue, cognitive symptoms).S13 S14 Furthermore, the intersec- temporoparietal junction and insula cortex connectivity in the
tion of FND, functional somatic disorders (eg, fibromyalgia) resting state.24 S16
and other neuropsychiatric conditions (anxiety and trauma-­
related disorders, somatic symptom disorders, mild traumatic
Implications
brain injury, etc) requires clarification.
An important implication of this work has been to support
mFND as a brain-­based condition. In this sense, it is simply a
process of the mFND field catching up with the rest of neuro-
MECHANISMS
psychiatry, benefiting from recent neuroscientific advances,
New developments
building on historical concepts, which further bridges neurology
An important recent focus of mechanistic theorising has been
and psychiatry. However, this change has a danger of creating
to shift the typical viewpoint from which mFND has been
a solely neurocentric view of mFND, ending up swapping one
studied. Traditional ‘Freudian’ and related viewpoints have
extreme viewpoint (psychology only) for another (neurology
been, arguably, ones that prioritise aetiological factors over
only)—a sentiment that we caution against.
mechanisms. In other words, the precise mechanics of how
a particular functional motor symptom arises has not been of
high concern, and instead emphasis had been almost exclu- Future directions
sively on the influence of hypothesised stressors and psycho- The path forward is one that continues building an integrated,
logical factors. mechanistic framework for mFND that is neither exclusively
Emphasis on mFND mechanisms has drawn on a broad psychological nor neurological. A key future goal is to attempt
neuroscientific knowledge base, including from the fields of to unpack, at an individual level, the different influences on
motor control (eg, the underpinnings of sense of agency), symptoms, aetiologies, treatment response and prognosis. For
cognitive-­affective neuroscience (eg, attention and emotion example, efforts to integrate active inference principles not
processing) and computational neuroscience. One of the only for sensorimotor percepts but also pertaining to interocep-
important questions such work has sought to answer is: if tion and ‘emotion making’ based on the theory of constructed
functional neurological symptoms are truly involuntary, what emotion may provide additional mechanistic advances in
are the implicated brain mechanisms of these unconscious mFND.S17 How mFND neural mechanisms relate to treatment
processes? mechanisms and clinical outcomes is critically important and
Research has started to coalesce around the idea that there is under-­researched.26 Additionally, it remains unclear if outward
a mechanism (or set of inter-­related mechanisms) which medi- presenting phenotypes (eg, functional tremor) are driven by
ates the relationship between conscious experience of move- the same set of mechanisms across all patients or if there are
ment control and the neural networks that enable movement a range of biological mechanisms that may lead to the same
and related sensatory experiences to occur. In one expression clinical phenotype. If neural mechanisms differ across patients
of this idea grounded in the computational theory of active with similar phenotypes, it will be important to understand
inference, perception and movement control rely on a dynamic if biologically informed subtypes are linked to specific treat-
relationship between actual sensory data and predictions ment response and prognostic profiles. Such observations, if
about these data.22 The relative weighting of these ‘bottom robustly elucidated, would facilitate the use of precision medi-
up’ and ‘top down’ sources of information (known as preci- cine in mFND care. Relatedly, research is needed to investi-
sion) can be influenced by attentional focus (including modu- gate if there are common neural mechanisms across FND
lation via limbic/salience networks). The suggestion in mFND and the spectrum of functional disorders across medicine. To
670 Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Figure 1  Model and evidence supporting the role for sensorimotor expectations and misdirected attention in the pathophysiology of motor functional
neurological disorder. Based on Edwards et al, (A) shows the hierarchical anatomy that is theorised to underlie false inference in patients with functional
motor symptoms.22 Within this model, abnormal prior expectation is formed within prediction units of intermediate motor areas (here the supplementary
motor area (SMA)) (black triangles). This prior is afforded abnormal precision by attentional processes (blue arrow) that cause intermediate level motor
predictions (thick black arrows) to elicit movement and prediction errors (thick red arrows) from prediction error units (red triangles) to report the
unpredicted content of the movement to higher cortical areas (here, pre-­SMA (pSMA)). The secondary consequence of these prediction errors is that
prefrontal regions try to explain them in terms of symptomatic interpretation or misattribution of agency to external causes. Based on findings of Lin et al,
(B) (top portion) displays the broken escalator phenomenon.23 Following a series of initial ‘before’ tasks where participants step onto and off of a stationary
platform (not shown), participants then go on to step onto a moving sled performed 10 times (‘moving’). In the ‘after’ trials, participants once again
step onto a stationary sled five times. The ‘broken escalator’ phenomenon, also called the locomotor after effect, occurs when the learnt motor response
during the ‘moving’ phase is carried forward in the ‘after’ trials. In (B) (lower panel), linear trunk displacement measurements show that only patients
with a functional gait displayed persistence of the locomotor after effect across repeated ‘after’ trials. Lin et al suggested this reflected evidence of failed
deadaptation (failure to update expectations).

comprehensively answer these questions, behavioural, electro- biological (genetic/epigenetic) risk, life events and precipitating
physiological, neuroimaging, autonomic, neuroendocrine and (triggering) factors.28 29 While in early stages, pathophysiology
neuroinflammation data will likely be needed. Use of patient studies have started to contextualise the neurobiological impor-
control groups, across co-­occurring neurological, psychiatric tance of childhood maltreatment in promoting the development
and medical diagnoses, will also inform the specificity of of mFND.24 S22 Two examples from the functional MRI litera-
neural mechanisms in mFND.S18 ture include: (1) the observation that resting-­state connectivity
strength between salience/limbic network brain areas (amygdala,
AETIOLOGICAL FACTORS insula) and the precentral gyrus correlated with the magnitude
New developments of previously experienced childhood physical abuse in patients
Over the past decade, aetiological research in mFND contextual- with mFND30 and (2) the finding that the G-­703T polymor-
ising predisposing vulnerabilities have identified the presence of phism (rs4570625) in the tryptophan hydroxylase-2 (TPH2)
a number of potential putative contributing factors, while at the gene moderated the relationship between childhood trauma and
same time, acknowledging the importance of individual differ- functional movement symptom severity; differential amygdala-­
ences. A systematic review and meta-­analysis showed that the prefrontal connectivity profiles were also identified in patients
odds of being diagnosed with FND was 3.9 times higher given with mFND based on TPH2 genotype (see figure 2).31
childhood physical abuse compared with controls and 3.3 times Acknowledging that not all patients with mFND endorse
higher given childhood sexual abuse.27 In a separate systematic adverse life experiences, risk factors for mFND extend beyond
review examining the later-­life consequences of childhood sexual these considerations. A heightened bodily attentional focus, at
abuse, the odds of experiencing sexual abuse was highest in FND times to the decrement of perceptual accuracy, has been char-
compared with a range of mood, anxiety, personality and pain-­ acterised in patients with mFND.32 S23 Altered bodily atten-
related disorders.S19 Underscoring the importance of adverse tion and increased arousal may also help explain associations
life experiences is a study of 430 individuals with mixed FND between physical injury and the subsequent development
identifying that nearly two-­thirds reported active post-­traumatic of mFND,33 given that physical injury promotes heightened
stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.S20 Studies in mFND popu- attention to the self and activation of bodily arousal systems.
S24
lations have also demonstrated the inter-­ relatedness between The traditional conceptualisation of several demographic
adverse life experiences and other predisposing vulnerabilities and psychosocial factors has also been challenged, including
for the development of mFND, such as fearful attachment styles the increased appreciation of mFND symptoms in older popu-
independently correlating with childhood abuse burden, alex- lations (eg, Parkinson’s disease)17 and findings that patients
ithymia and depression scores.S21 These findings highlight the with mFND and neurological controls have similar histories of
importance of considering the relevance of adverse life expe- employment in healthcare related fields. S25 Psychiatric diagnosis
riences in mFND populations using stress-­diathesis and neuro- are common (eg, 1/3 of patients with mFND meeting criteria
developmental perspectives, emphasising the interplay between for major depressive disorder), yet are not universally present
Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 671
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Figure 2  Examples of two recent functional neuroimaging studies bridging neural mechanisms and aetiological factors in motor functional neurological
disorder (mFND). Based on the findings of Diez et al, (A) shows connectograms and scatterplots illustrating that resting-­state functional connectivity
strength between emotion processing brain areas (amygdala, insula) and primary motor cortex (precentral gyrus) positively correlated with the magnitude
of previously experienced childhood physical abuse in patients with mixed mFND.30 Note: findings are bilateral but for ease of viewing only left hemisphere
findings are displayed; self-­reported childhood abuse burden was measured using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). Similar childhood physical
abuse–functional brain architecture relationships were not observed in psychiatric controls. Based on the findings of Spagnolo et al, (B) shows that
childhood abuse burden correlated with functional movement disorder (FMD) symptom severity only in the subset of patients carrying the G-­703T
polymorphism (rs4570625) in the tryptophan hydroxylase-2 gene. (C) T carriers with mFND exhibited reduced right amygdala–middle frontal gyrus resting-­
state functional connectivity compared with GG homozygotes with mFND and healthy controls.31

in all patients with mFND. S26 Trait psychological constructs risk factors in patients who lack such a history. The relevance
remain important, such as the finding that alexithymia, indepen- of aetiological factors to treatment selection and response (eg,
dent of depression scores, was elevated in patients with mFND targeting concurrently present PTSD symptoms as an approach
compared with neurological and healthy controls; patients with to treat mFND) also requires more research inquiry.
mFND and prominent alexithymia also exhibited higher rates of
obsessive-­compulsive personality disorder.34 Novel risk factors
for the development of mFND have also been identified, such as TREATMENTS AND PROGNOSIS
aberrant sensory and information processing.35 36 New developments
The late 20th century’s lack of interest and investment in
Implications mFND by healthcare systems is reflected in exceedingly few care
Identification of a broad array of relevant, yet non-­deterministic, programmes for this population, which in turn is reflected in
risk factors for developing mFND suggests that links between patients feeling marginalised and unable to access treatments.S27
S28
aetiological factors and disease mechanism remain incompletely
understood. More specifically, while adverse life experiences With the DSM-5 modifications, the neurologist’s (and other
remain important vulnerabilities for developing mFND and are clinician’s) role in mFND has now expanded to making a posi-
linked to other predisposing and perpetuating factors, the pres- tive ‘rule-­in’ diagnosis, communicating the diagnosis effectively
ence or absence of these events neither helps rule in nor rule out and facilitating access to additional treatments. ‘How to’ arti-
a diagnosis of mFND. cles have disseminated good clinical practices on the delivery of
the diagnosis and longitudinal care.18 S29 Specialist FND clinics,
Future directions often led jointly by neurologists and psychiatrists, have also been
Additional research is needed to understand the intersection of developed in some countries for complex cases (eg, those with
disease mechanisms, aetiological factors and treatment response diagnostic uncertainty, multiple comorbidities).S30 S31 With the
within the context of the biopsychosocial framework (including time required to adequately manage this population, challenges
spiritual and cultural influences). A precision medicine approach have been raised regarding clinical bandwidth.S30
may be needed to not only link psychosocial risk factors to brain The website ​ neurosymptoms.​ org has become a valuable
circuits but also to contextualise a range of relevant mediating educational resource for patients and clinicians. Other informa-
and modulating factors including genetic/epigenetic informa- tion websites have been created, including from patient support
tion. The importance of developmental trajectories (including charities (eg, ​ fndhope.​ org, f​ndaction.​
org.​
uk). The efficacy of
critical periods), gene–environment interactions and sex differ- online information and self-­help used in isolation was assessed
ences are also underexplored factors that may help better explain in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).37 At 3 months, there
connections between risk factors and the later-­life development was no difference in improvement on self-­rated health or in
of mFND. Given significant childhood maltreatment in a subset secondary outcomes between groups. This suggests that online
of patients with mFND, future research may also inquire if there education, while generally rated favourably, is inadequate as a
is a ‘trauma subtype’ of mFND, while also clarifying important stand-­alone treatment.
672 Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Table 2  Randomised controlled trials in motor functional neurological disorder over the past decade
Study n Description Points
Physiotherapy
Nielsen et al40 60 Randomised feasibility study of specialist physiotherapy versus usual The intervention was delivered by physiotherapists and included education,
care movement retraining and self-­management. The control was standard
Duration and setting: 5 days in an intensive outpatient/day community neurophysiotherapy.
programme At 6-­month follow-­up, 72% of the intervention group reported
Outcome measures: Feasibility (recruitment and retention rates, symptom improvement, compared with 18% of the controls. Significant
intervention fidelity, acceptability); SF-36; WSAS; EQ-­5D-­5L; DASH; improvement was seen in a range of physical and quality-­of-­life outcome
CGI-­patient rated; FMS; BBS measures. The intervention was associated with a gain in quality adjusted
life years and an incremental cost effectiveness ratio that was suggestive
of a cost-­effective intervention.
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation
Jordbru et al39 60 Randomised study of multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus a wait list This is the first and currently only randomised study of multidisciplinary
control for functional gait disorder rehabilitation (described by the authors as ‘adapted physical activity with a
Duration and setting: 3-­week inpatient programme cognitive behavioural framework’).
Outcome measures: FIM, FMS, SF-12 Post treatment, there was a significant difference between groups in
physical and quality-­of-­life outcome assessments. Treatment gains were,
for the most part, maintained at 12-­month follow-­up.
Cognitive behavioural therapy
Dallocchio et al42 29 A pilot, single-­blinded randomised study, comparing CBT alone versus The two CBT containing interventions (with and without physical
CBT plus physical activity versus SMC activity) showed reduction in PMDRS over 12 weeks. SMC showed no
Duration and setting: 12 weeks of outpatient 90-­minute CBT with or improvements.
without adjunctive outpatient physical activity (60 min, two times per
week)
Outcome measures: PMDRS; PHQ-15
Sharpe et al43 127* Randomised controlled trial of CBT-­based guided self-­help plus usual Participants allocated to self-­help CBT reported greater improvement on
care versus usual care alone the primary outcome of self-­rated health (CGI). At 6 months, the treatment
Duration and setting: self-­guided outpatient CBT plus four 30-­minute effect was no longer statistically significant.
face-­to-­face guidance sessions over 3 months
Outcome measures: CGI-­patient rated; SF-12; PHQ-13
Botulinum neurotoxin
Dreissen et al44 49 Randomised, double-­blinded controlled trial of botulinum neurotoxin At 4 months, there were no statistically significant differences between
versus placebo (sterile saline) injections treatment arms across primary and secondary outcomes. However,
Duration and setting: two outpatient injections 3 months apart, improvement was observed across both treatment arms (56%–64%),
followed by a 10-­month open-­label extension suggesting a notable placebo effect. Across the length of the entire trial,
Outcome measures: CGI-­clinician and CGI-­patient rated; PMDRS; SF- 81% improved from baseline.
36; AMC Linear Disability Score
Vizcarra et al45 14 Randomised controlled trial of botulinum neurotoxin versus placebo There were no differences in clinical outcomes at 12 weeks. While both
(sterile saline) injections, followed by CBT treatment arms showed a tendency toward improvement, a statistically
Duration and setting: outpatient injection followed by 12 weeks of significant change from baseline was only observed in the placebo+CBT
psychotherapy group.
Outcome measures: PMDRS, Katz Index of Independence in ADLs,
Lawton instrumental ADL
Online education and self-­help
Gelauff et al37 186 A randomised controlled trial of internet-­based education and self-­ No additional treatment benefit was found in the intervention group;
help plus usual care versus usual care alone however, the participants valued online information. This suggests online
Duration and setting: online access with outcomes evaluated at 3 and self-­help is not on its own an effective treatment.
6 months
Outcome measures: CGI-­patient rated; RAND36; WSAS
*Of the 127 participants, only approximately one-­third had motor symptoms (weakness or tremor); the exact number of participants with motor symptoms is not specified. Additionally, outcome
measures listed in this table focus on the selected physical functioning and quality-­of-­life instruments used in each study. Two small sample size randomised controlled trials using psychodynamic
psychotherapy approaches are not shown here, but are detailed in online supplemental table 1.
ADL, activities of daily living; AMC, Academic Medical Center; BBS, Berg Balance Scale; CBT, cognitive behavioural therapy; CGI, Clinical Global Improvement Scale; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm,
Shoulder and Hand; FIM, Functional Independence Measure; FMS, Functional Mobility Scale; PHQ, Patient Health Questionnaire; PMDRS, Psychogenic Movement Disorder Rating Scale; RAND36,
Dutch equivalent of SF-36; SF-12, Short Form 12; SF-36, Short Form Health Survey 36; SMC, standard medical care; WSAS, Work and Social Adjustment Scale.

There has been a rise in physical rehabilitation and multidis- of controls at 6-­month follow-­up. See table 2 for additional
ciplinary research.38 Since 2010, no less than 17 rehabilitation details and supporting evidence.S32-43
cohort studies of patients with mFND have been published A factor complicating synthesis of the evidence for physio-
(2 RCTs, 7 prospective and 8 retrospective). The first RCT, therapy and multidisciplinary rehabilitation is heterogeneity
published in 2014, compared a 3-­ week inpatient multidisci- in the interventions. Differences include treatment setting
plinary rehabilitation programme to a waiting list control, for (outpatient, inpatient, day hospital), medical specialty involved
patients with functional gait disorders.39 Improvements were (psychiatry, neurology, physical rehabilitation, etc), treatment
seen in the treatment arm in measures of physical health that duration/intensity and type of therapy and combination of
were maintained at 12-­month follow-­up. The second RCT was a modalities (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT),
feasibility study of specialist physiotherapy, comprising psycho- psychoeducation, movement retraining, non-­ specific exercise,
logically informed education and movement retraining.40 Sixty etc). Despite differences, common elements across treatments
patients were randomised to the intervention versus standard include starting with a diagnostic explanation based on a patient-­
community neurophysiotherapy, with 72% of the intervention centred biopsychosocial model. Motor symptoms are often
participants reporting motor improvements compared with 18% conceptualised as a disconnect between the brain and body, and
Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 673
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
self-­directed attention is usually emphasised as a factor exacer- Given that non-­specialist clinicians may feel ill prepared to
bating symptoms. Physical therapies aim to retrain movement assess and manage patients with mFND,S52 expert opinion-­based
with diverted attention, and physical interventions are informed recommendations and practical advice are welcomed additions.
by a psychological understanding of symptoms (eg, addressing These include:
46
fear-­avoidance behaviours using graded exposure). ►► Assessment and diagnosis of mFND symptoms.
S3
As well summarised in a recent systematic review, the major ►► Neuropsychiatric assessment.
advance for psychotherapy in mFND is that initial RCTs have ►► Delivering the diagnosis (including providing clear, empathic
been conducted and published—after a dearth of controlled data communication with a cautiously optimistic stance for
in decades prior.41 Examples of the interventions are described improvement).18
S53
below and summarised in table 2 and online supplemental table ►► mFND presenting to stroke services.
47
1. ►► Physiotherapy.
48
Psychotherapy trials for mFND include a pilot single-­blind ►► Occupational therapy.
RCT of 29 patients with mFND (mostly functional tremor) Consensus recommendations to standardise outcome measures
randomised to receive 12 weeks of conventional CBT alone for clinical trial research in FND have also been published,
(90-­ minute session, once a week) versus CBT+adjunctive emphasising patient-­reported data.49
physical activity (APA) (60-­minute session, two times per week Regarding prognosis, a systemic review of long-­term follow-­up
of low-­intensity/moderate-­intensity walking).42 The control studies from 10 to 491 individuals reported that 39% of patients
group consisted of eight patients receiving standard medical across the spectrum of FND were the same or worse and the
care (SMC). The CBT intervention focused on the interplay of majority (approximately 80%) remained symptomatic.S54 The
somatic misinterpretations, negative thoughts, illness beliefs and same research group recently published a 14-­year follow-­up study
low mood or anxiety, along with use of distraction, relaxation in 76 adults with weakness, identifying that 20% had symptom
and other problem-­solving techniques. The two CBT containing resolution, 31% improved, 23% were the same and 26% were
interventions (with and without APA) showed improvements in worse.16 In terms of discrete prognostic factors in adults, find-
functional motor symptoms, depression and anxiety scores at ings have been inconsistent and understudied in more recently
12 weeks, while the SMC arm showed no significant improve- developed care models. Outcomes from specialist paediatric
ments. A prospective single-­arm study in 15 patients with func- multidisciplinary programmes are more optimistic with approx-
tional tremor also demonstrated the efficacy for CBT in reducing imately three quarters of children returning to full health and
tremor severity.26 Furthermore, an RCT of self-­guided CBT in full-­time school attendance.5 Outcomes are less favourable for
127 patients with mixed FND randomised to CBT+usual care children with chronic mFND symptoms at presentation; those
(n=64) versus usual care alone (n=63) showed a statistically with cognitive vulnerabilities, whose comorbid mental health
significant improvement in patient-­ rated global improvement disorders or other (comorbid) functional somatic symptoms do
at 3 months for those receiving CBT; reductions in somatic not resolve and those who subsequently develop chronic mental
symptom burden and health anxiety were also observed. These health problems.
gains were no longer significant at 6-­month follow-­up.43 See
online supplemental table 1 for details regarding two small
Implications
psychodynamic psychotherapy RCTs, as well as other psycho-
While delivery of the diagnosis is the first step in treatment,
therapy cohort studies in mFND populations.S44-46
online self-­help information alone is insufficient for symptom
Regarding paediatric mFND—while there are ethical and
reduction and should not be considered definitive treatment.
practical challenges to performing RCTs in this population—
Likewise, self-­help psychotherapy approaches appear to lack
efficacious multidisciplinary programmes generally combine
durability in maintaining improvement. Careful assessment is
psychotherapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and family
needed to triage patients towards the most suitable treatment
work targeting focus of attention and pertinent stressors and
based on available options, including physiotherapy, skills based
school attendance/reintegration (see online supplemental table
psychotherapy and/or multidisciplinary interventions. Given
1).5 S47-­S49
evolving care models and lack of robust predictors of prognosis,
There remains little evidence for pharmacological therapy
those with chronic symptoms, formerly considered refractory,
in the direct treatment of mFND symptoms, yet medications
should not be excluded from evidence-­based treatments.
have a role in managing concurrently present anxiety, depres-
sion, migraine and insomnia. Regarding other treatments, a
recent randomised placebo-­controlled trial of botulinum neuro- Future directions
toxin (BoNT) for jerky and tremulous functional movement To further advance mFND treatments, future research should
disorder (n=48) found no benefit compared with placebo.44 continue to pursue fully powered RCTs across rehabilitative and
Here, approximately two-­ thirds of patients in both groups psychological interventions. Studies examining optimal treat-
improved, demonstrating a large placebo effect. A similar posi- ment setting(s) are also needed.
tive placebo response was observed in a pilot randomised trial of An important future direction could be to develop specific
BoNT followed by 12 weeks of CBT in patients with functional interventions that are tailored both towards the mFND pheno-
dystonia (n=14).45 While placebo effects are important consid- type (eg, weakness, tremor, dystonia) and the wider clin-
erations,S50 there is an argument to be made for the use of BoNT ical syndrome. For example, in addition to motor symptoms,
in patients with chronic symptoms that have not benefited from common comorbidities and other health-­related problems could
other treatments. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) also be considered within a single-­ treatment package (eg, PTSD,
continues to be investigated as a promising therapeutic, although anxiety, chronic pain, migraine, joint hypermobility, social diffi-
disentangling circuit-­level neuromodulatory effects from placebo culties, etc). The timing of the different treatment elements may
remains challenging.S51 When placebo is considered the ‘active also be important, and the value of a modular approach to treat-
ingredient’, there remains debate regarding how transparent to ment could be explored, where the focus of whole-­person treat-
be with patients (we favour an open and transparent stance). ment can be personalised and evolve according to the patient’s
674 Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
biopsychosocial clinical formulation. As an example, a patient With the growth of scientifically based medicine and the
with a functional gait disorder and major depression with suicid- complexities in how to understand functional neurological
ality may benefit from physical therapy at some point, but it symptoms, mFND was sidelined and publicly stigmatised into
is probably more important initially to treat aggressively their the category of ‘medically unexplained’ disorders in the late 20th
depression and existential concerns. Conversely, a patient with century. Interest in mFND waned reflected in mFND largely
sudden onset disabling physical symptoms may need to make disappearing from medical textbooks, educational curricula and
some initial progress with physical therapy (eg, to regain sitting bedside teaching.S1 Relatedly, many physicians avoided the diag-
balance) before engaging well in psychotherapy. nosis—or used terminology that was offensive (eg, confusing
Additional research should explore the development of tech-­ mFND with malingering)—leaving patients perplexed or angry
rehabilitation adjuncts (informed by advances in elucidating and setting up a negative process whereby patients sought help
mFND pathophysiology) and innovations to improve access from multiple physicians, were subjected to repeated unnecessary
to specialist treatment (eg, tele/remote health as has been used diagnostic tests and treatment was delayed or not provided.18
in other FND subtypes,50 virtual reality, wearable technology, Public stigma regarding mFND has unfortunately contin-
biofeedback, TMS, etc). More aggressive focus on psychosocial ued.S55 Some physicians caring for patients with mFND may
factors might also be useful. Additional work is needed to define manifest their discomfort in non-­verbal communication patterns
the most suitable clinical outcome measures and to also deter- that convey uncertainty, negative treatment expectations and/or
mine if the creation of new FND-­specific outcome measures may their own perceptions that the diagnosis is a delicate (stigma-
be beneficial. Further clarifying neural mechanisms and predic- tised) matter that needs to be managed cautiously (or at least not
tors of treatment response will also be important,26 offering by a neurologist).S56 In doing so, physicians undermine their own
the potential to develop novel psychologically and biologically capacity to use positive suggestion to influence belief—relevant
informed treatment interventions. Finally, it is crucial that more in the treatment of mFND—and core to the art of healing in all
treatment programmes are developed; it will not do any good to of medicine.5 53 Patients can also have negative interactions with
find optimal treatment strategies if they will not be available to other healthcare professionals (eg, nurses, administrative staff),
the majority of patients. coworkers, friends and family—driven in part by the conceptual
misunderstandings outlined above. The general lack of dedicated
services in hospitals and the failure to include FND in national
STIGMA research priorities also communicate a powerful message that
New developments mFND is seemingly unimportant.
Stigma pertaining to the diagnosis of mFND is increasingly Patients with mFND may internalise stigma, make it personal
recognised as an important, multifaceted issue requiring clinical and report being harmed by it.S56 Internalisation of stigma
and research attention. In mFND, stigma represents a complex promotes feelings of vulnerability, helplessness, hopelessness,
interplay between patients, clinician–patient relationships, frustration and anger.52 Stigma contributes to the shaping of
healthcare systems and sociocultural factors. The very fact that patients’ own internal beliefs and expectations, which may limit
mFND sits at the intersection of neurology and psychiatry chal- their ability to improve.5 These factors also contribute to nega-
lenges deeply rooted medical and societal norms of health and tive doctor–patient interactions.S56
disease. Furthermore, the variability/distractibility seen in many As a consequence, some patients find it difficult to accept an
individuals mistakenly perpetuates a framing that symptoms are mFND diagnosis and others reject the diagnosis altogether or liti-
voluntary (when perceived nonetheless as involuntary by the gate the physician.S56 S57 This label avoidance contributes both to
patient). These and other nuanced issues related to stigma can clinician anxiety and potentially to endless doctor shopping (and
be discussed across three levels—public stigma, personal self-­ medical procedures) in hopes of receiving a different ‘medical’
stigma and patient label avoidance—and we use these categories diagnosis. Sometimes label avoidance even propels patients to
to frame our discussion (see box 1).51 52 accept explanations that are outlandish or that conceptualise
their mFND as a ‘medical mystery’.S57 S58
Changes in how the diagnosis is communicated to patients are
occurring, including more clinicians using the term ‘functional’.
Box 1  Three different aspects of stigma
Educational efforts are underway to help physicians avoid the
pitfalls of oversimplified explanations to patients that ‘it is all
Stigma category and definition
stress-­related’ and moving towards describing ‘stressors’ in the
►► Public stigma occurs when the general population—or
context of life events.4 7 The multidisciplinary FND Society,
certain subsets of the population—endorses negative beliefs
several authoritative FND textbooks, growth of specialised
pertaining to a certain illness and acts on these beliefs in a
treatment programmes and high impact publications advocating
discriminatory manner, often by avoidance and withdrawal.
for change and research funding indicate that mFND is re-­en-
►► Personal stigma occurs when the individual person—child or
tering mainstream medicine.2 4 5 S30 S31 S59
adult or the family—becomes aware of the negative beliefs
about a certain illness, internalises these beliefs and applies
them to the self.
Implications
►► Patient label avoidance refers to the patient’s reluctance and
Public stigma, personal self-­stigma and patient label avoidance
efforts to distance himself or herself from a label—in the
in mFND remain major concerns, and efforts to mitigate stigma
case of motor functional neurological disorder, a diagnosis—
need to be driven by clinicians, researchers, patients, advocacy
because the label is perceived as being socially unacceptable.
groups and policy-­makers. A helpful transition that has occurred
This type of stigma is more commonly perceived in relation
in recent years is the framing of mFND at the intersection of
to mental health disorders, because such disorders are
neurology and psychiatry (synonymous with a core neuropsychi-
commonly misperceived as being the result of personal
atric disorder), and rigorous pathophysiology research in mFND
weakness or poor character.
is also decreasing stigma by advancing a brain-­based, mechanistic
Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 675
 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
understanding of the condition. Unfortunately, mental health is of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and
stigmatised in many societies and healthcare systems in compar- responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content
includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability
ison to medical/neurological conditions. This is a notable issue, of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines,
given that the multidisciplinary approach to mFND patient care terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error
includes important roles for mental health clinicians.3 Treatment and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
implications that emerge from this body of work highlight the
ORCID iDs
importance of the biopsychosocial model—the body, mind and David L Perez http://​orcid.​org/​0000-​0003-​2721-​583X
family and social context—to address each patient’s particular Mark Hallett http://​orcid.​org/​0000-​0002-​3180-​6811
presentation and issues. The mFND field needs to be cautious W Curt LaFrance, Jr http://​orcid.​org/​0000-​0002-​4901-​3852
so as to strike a good balance between neurological and psycho-
logical/psychiatric conceptualisations of the disorder. Moreover,
mental health professionals need to be empowered at the same REFERENCES
1 Espay AJ, Aybek S, Carson A, et al. Current concepts in diagnosis and treatment of
level of engagement as neurologists, rehabilitation specialists and functional neurological disorders. JAMA Neurol 2018;75:1132–41.
research scientists, as we work collaboratively for the benefit of 2 Stephen CD, Fung V, Lungu CI, et al. Assessment of emergency department and
patients. inpatient use and costs in adult and pediatric functional neurological disorders. JAMA
Neurol 2021;78:88–101.
3 Pick S, Goldstein LH, Perez DL, et al. Emotional processing in functional neurological
Future directions disorder: a review, biopsychosocial model and research agenda. J Neurol Neurosurg
In addition to increasing advocacy to further decrease stigma Psychiatry 2019;90:704–11.
4 Hallett M, Stone J, Carson AJ. Functional neurologic disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
pertaining to mFND and related conditions across medicine and 2016.
society, mFND can serve as a model condition through which 5 Kozlowska K, Scher S, Helgeland H. Functional somatic symptoms in children and
to challenge the inherently artificial divide between physical adolescents: the Stress-­System approach to assessment and treatment. London:
and mental health that is pervasive in medicine and society—a Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
dualism exposed most directly by mFND. This condition also 6 Daum C, Hubschmid M, Aybek S. The value of ’positive’ clinical signs for weakness,
sensory and gait disorders in conversion disorder: a systematic and narrative review. J
offers the potential to bring the disciplines of neurology and Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85:180–90.
psychiatry, two specialties for the same organ system, increas- 7 LaFaver K, Lang AE, Stone J, et al. Opinions and clinical practices related to
ingly together to leverage an integrated clinical neuroscience diagnosing and managing functional (psychogenic) movement disorders: changes in
perspective. the last decade. Eur J Neurol 2020;27:975–84.
8 Schwingenschuh P, Katschnig P, Seiler S, et al. Moving toward "laboratory-­supported"
criteria for psychogenic tremor. Mov Disord 2011;26:2509–15.
CONCLUSIONS 9 Daum C, Gheorghita F, Spatola M, et al. Interobserver agreement and validity of
bedside ’positive signs’ for functional weakness, sensory and gait disorders in
Significant advances have occurred in the past decade in the
conversion disorder: a pilot study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86:425–30.
diagnosis, conceptual understanding and treatment of mFND. 10 Espay AJ, Lang AE. Phenotype-­specific diagnosis of functional (psychogenic)
This progress reflects a renaissance taking place across the field movement disorders. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2015;15:32.
of FND, bringing neurology and psychiatry together again, as we 11 van der Salm SMA, Tijssen MAJ, Koelman JHTM, et al. The Bereitschaftspotential in
are confronted by the need for multidisciplinary and collabora- jerky movement disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:1162–7.
12 Ganos C, Martino D, Espay AJ, et al. Tics and functional tic-­like movements: can we
tive care models for this complex population. With a biopsycho- tell them apart? Neurology 2019;93:750–8.
social understanding of mFND and with better neuroscientific 13 Nonnekes J, Růžička E, Serranová T, et al. Functional gait disorders: a sign-­based
tools to provide rigorous biological phenotyping and classifi- approach. Neurology 2020;94:1093–9.
cation, we are poised to design well-­constructed and patient-­ 14 Hawley JS, Weiner WJ. Psychogenic dystonia and peripheral trauma. Neurology
2011;77:496–502.
centred clinical trials to benefit patients with this condition.
15 Kaski D, Bronstein AM, Edwards MJ, et al. Cranial functional (psychogenic) movement
disorders. Lancet Neurol 2015;14:1196–205.
Contributors  All authors contributed to the planning, literature review, drafting 16 Gelauff JM, Carson A, Ludwig L, et al. The prognosis of functional limb weakness: a
and editing of the manuscript. 14-­year case-c­ ontrol study. Brain 2019;142:2137–48.
Funding  DLP was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Grant 17 Wissel BD, Dwivedi AK, Merola A, et al. Functional neurological disorders in Parkinson
K23MH111983-04 and the Sidney R. Baer Jr. Foundation. MH was supported by disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018;89:566–71.
the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Intramural 18 Carson A, Lehn A, Ludwig L, et al. Explaining functional disorders in the neurology
Programme. GN receives research funding from the National Institute for Health clinic: a photo story. Pract Neurol 2016;16:56–61.
Research. 19 Stone J, Edwards M. Trick or treat? showing patients with functional (psychogenic)
motor symptoms their physical signs. Neurology 2012;79:282–4.
Competing interests  DLP has received honoraria for continuing medical 20 Schwingenschuh P, Katschnig P, Edwards MJ, et al. The blink reflex recovery cycle
education lectures in functional neurological disorder and is on the editorial board differs between essential and presumed psychogenic blepharospasm. Neurology
of Epilepsy & Behavior. MH is an inventor of patents held by National Institutes of 2011;76:610–4.
Health (NIH) for an immunotoxin for the treatment of focal movement disorders and 21 Galli S, Tatu L, Bogousslavsky J, et al. Conversion, factitious disorder and malingering:
the H-­coil for magnetic stimulation; in relation to the latter, he has received license a distinct pattern or a continuum? Front Neurol Neurosci 2018;42:72–80.
fee payments from the NIH (from Brainsway). He is on the medical advisory boards 22 Edwards MJ, Adams RA, Brown H, et al. A Bayesian account of ’hysteria’. Brain
of Cala Health and Brainsway. He has research grants from Allergan for studies 2012;135:3495–512.
of methods to inject botulinum toxins, Medtronic, Inc. for a study of deep brain 23 Lin D, Castro P, Edwards A, et al. Dissociated motor learning and de-­adaptation in
stimulation (DBS) for dystonia and Cala Health for studies of a device to suppress patients with functional gait disorders. Brain 2020;143:2594–606.
tremor. WCL receives editor’s royalties from the publication of Gates and Rowan’s 24 Maurer CW, LaFaver K, Ameli R, et al. Impaired self-­agency in functional movement
Nonepileptic Seizures, 3rd edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010) and 4th disorders: a resting-­state fMRI study. Neurology 2016;87:564–70.
edition (2018) and author’s royalties for Taking Control of Your Seizures: Workbook 25 Aybek S, Nicholson TR, Zelaya F, et al. Neural correlates of recall of life events in
and Therapist Guide (Oxford University Press, 2015) and receives research support conversion disorder. JAMA Psychiatry 2014;71:52–60.
from the Department of Defense (DoD W81XWH-17-0169). 26 Espay AJ, Ries S, Maloney T, et al. Clinical and neural responses to cognitive behavioral
Patient consent for publication  Not required. therapy for functional tremor. Neurology 2019;93:e1787–98.
27 Ludwig L, Pasman JA, Nicholson T, et al. Stressful life events and maltreatment in
Provenance and peer review  Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
conversion (functional neurological) disorder: systematic review and meta-­analysis of
Supplemental material  This content has been supplied by the author(s). It case-­control studies. Lancet Psychiatry 2018;5:307–20.
has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have 28 Keynejad RC, Frodl T, Kanaan R, et al. Stress and functional neurological disorders:
been peer-­reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those mechanistic insights. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2019;90:813–21.

676 Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953

 Neuropsychiatry

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 on 15 March 2021. Downloaded from http://jnnp.bmj.com/ on August 6, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
29 Apazoglou K, Adouan W, Aubry J-­M, et al. Increased methylation of the oxytocin 41 Gutkin M, McLean L, Brown R, et al. Systematic review of psychotherapy for adults
receptor gene in motor functional neurological disorder: a preliminary study. J Neurol with functional neurological disorder. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 202010.1136/
Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018;89:552–4. jnnp-2019-321926. [Epub ahead of print: 05 Nov 2020].
30 Diez I, Larson AG, Nakhate V, et al. Early-­Life trauma endophenotypes and brain 42 Dallocchio C, Tinazzi M, Bombieri F, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy and
circuit-­gene expression relationships in functional neurological (conversion) disorder. adjunctive physical activity for functional movement disorders (conversion disorder): a
Mol Psychiatry 2020. doi:10.1038/s41380-020-0665-0. [Epub ahead of print: 12 Feb pilot, single-­blinded, randomized study. Psychother Psychosom 2016;85:381–3.
2020]. 43 Sharpe M, Walker J, Williams C, et al. Guided self-­help for functional (psychogenic)
31 Spagnolo PA, Norato G, Maurer CW, et al. Effects of TPH2 gene variation and symptoms: a randomized controlled efficacy trial. Neurology 2011;77:564–72.
childhood trauma on the clinical and circuit-­level phenotype of functional movement 44 Dreissen YEM, Dijk JM, Gelauff JM, et al. Botulinum neurotoxin treatment in
disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;91:814–21. jerky and tremulous functional movement disorders: a double-­blind, randomised
32 Pareés I, Saifee TA, Kassavetis P, et al. Believing is perceiving: mismatch between self-­ placebo-­controlled trial with an open-­label extension. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
report and actigraphy in psychogenic tremor. Brain 2012;135:117–23. 2019;90:1244–50.
33 Kozlowska K, Palmer DM, Brown KJ, et al. Reduction of autonomic regulation 45 Vizcarra JA, Lopez-­Castellanos JR, Dwivedi AK, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA and
in children and adolescents with conversion disorders. Psychosom Med cognitive behavioral therapy in functional dystonia: a pilot randomized clinical trial.
2015;77:356–70. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2019;63:174–8.
34 Demartini B, Petrochilos P, Ricciardi L, et al. The role of alexithymia in the development 46 Stone J. Functional neurological disorders: the neurological assessment as treatment.
of functional motor symptoms (conversion disorder). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Pract Neurol 2016;16:7–17.
2014;85:1132–7. 47 Nielsen G, Stone J, Matthews A, et al. Physiotherapy for functional motor disorders: a
35 Sadnicka A, Daum C, Meppelink A-­M, et al. Reduced drift rate: a biomarker consensus recommendation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86:1113–9.
of impaired information processing in functional movement disorders. Brain 48 Nicholson C, Edwards MJ, Carson AJ, et al. Occupational therapy consensus
2020;143:674–83. recommendations for functional neurological disorder. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
36 Pareés I, Kassavetis P, Saifee TA, et al. ’Jumping to conclusions’ bias in functional 2020;91:1037–45.
movement disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:460–3. 49 Pick S, Anderson DG, Asadi-­Pooya AA, et al. Outcome measurement in functional
37 Gelauff JM, Rosmalen JGM, Carson A, et al. Internet-­based self-­help neurological disorder: a systematic review and recommendations. J Neurol Neurosurg
randomized trial for motor functional neurologic disorder (shift). Neurology Psychiatry 2020;91:638–49.
2020;95:e1883–96. 50 LaFrance WC Jr, Ho WLN, Bhatla A, et al. Treatment of psychogenic nonepileptic
38 Nielsen G, Stone J, Edwards MJ. Physiotherapy for functional (psychogenic) motor seizures (PNES) using video telehealth. Epilepsia 2020;61:2572–82.
symptoms: a systematic review. J Psychosom Res 2013;75:93–102. 51 Corrigan PW. Lessons learned from unintended consequences about erasing the
39 Jordbru AA, Smedstad LM, Klungsøyr O, et al. Psychogenic gait disorder: a randomized stigma of mental illness. World Psychiatry 2016;15:67–73.
controlled trial of physical rehabilitation with one-­year follow-­up. J Rehabil Med 52 Rommelfanger KS, Factor SA, LaRoche S, et al. Disentangling stigma from functional
2014;46:181–7. neurological disorders: conference report and roadmap for the future. Front Neurol
40 Nielsen G, Buszewicz M, Stevenson F, et al. Randomised feasibility study of 2017;8:106.
physiotherapy for patients with functional motor symptoms. J Neurol Neurosurg 53 Wieder L, Brown R, Thompson T, et al. Suggestibility in functional neurological
Psychiatry 2017;88:484–90. disorder: a meta-­analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:150–7.

Perez DL, et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021;92:668–677. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323953 677